Ontario Labour Relations Board
3488-99-U Group of Employees, Applicant v. Service Employees International Union Local 220 and Grand River Hospital Corporation, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Alternate Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 29, 2000
1This is an application pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act"). The applicants allege that the Service Employees International Union, Local 220 (the SEIU) and the Grand River Hospital Corporation (the employer) have breached the Act in the manner in which they negotiated the merger of bargaining units and collective agreements, in the period from March 1999 to August 1999.
2In a decision dated May 3, 2000, the Board narrowed the range of issues it would consider to the one set out above, and directed both the employer and the SEIU to file responses to that issue within 21 calendar days. Both complied.
3Along with those submissions, both the SEIU and the employer raised a new issue. As a result of a displacement application for certification, the SEIU no longer represents the employees who are complaining about its conduct. The Canadian Autoworkers Union (the CAW) now represents the employees.
4In a decision dated March 31, 2000, the Board directed the applicants to respond to the position of the SEIU and the employer that this application should be dismissed because the issue is moot and no labour relations purpose would be served by inquiring further into this complaint.
5The applicant's representative responded on June 19, 2000. He does not believe that the issues are moot because the employees continue to face the consequences of what the applicants allege is an unlawful combining of bargaining units and collective agreements.
6What continues to concern the Board, however, is that, with all due respect, the applicants do not appear to understand the complex legal world into which they have entered.
7Their submissions with respect to the Board's discussion about why it is not appropriate to bring an Employment Standards case to the Board, at first instance, highlight that the applicants did not comprehend the Board's decision.
8In their latest submissions, the applicants' representative has raised new issues, and sought new remedies, without regard to whether or not they are issues and remedies that the Board can resolve and provide.
9It is apparent that the applicants have not heeded my earlier suggestion that they retain professional advice.
10The added issue of the displacement of the SEIU by the CAW creates yet another complication. This case raises particularly complex legal issues about which, to the Board's knowledge there are no settled answers. This case also raises interesting and difficult remedial issues.
11The Board's role is to adjudicate, not to advocate for one party or another. Put simply, the Board will not help the applicants (or any other party) to shape their case, or make their legal arguments. And unless the applicants can put together a semblance of a case to meet, the Board will not require the other parties to respond. Section 96 of the Act also permits the Board to decline to inquire into an unfair labour practice complaint if the Board decides that no labour relations purpose would be served. Once again, I urge the applicants to seek professional advice.
12By this decision, the Board is giving notice of these proceedings to the CAW. As the bargaining agent, they have an interest.
13As set out earlier, the issues raised by this case are complex. The Board is of the view that all parties would benefit from a pre-hearing conference before an adjudicator, with a view to streamlining the matters in dispute, preparing the matter for litigation, and looking for opportunities for resolution.
14The pre-hearing conference will take place on August 10, 2000, commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the Board's Offices, 505 University Avenue, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2P1.
15I note that the applicants have asked the Board to maintain their confidentiality. In fact, the applicants' representative has not provided the Board with contact information for any of the other applicants. Consequently, the Board is relying on the applicants' representative to advise the other applicants about the pre-hearing conference.
16The applicants must also be aware that if the matter proceeds to hearing, their identities may have to be disclosed if it is necessary in order to provide a fair hearing to the responding parties.
17This panel is not seized.
"Mary Ellen Cummings"
for the Board